By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
You WILL love this car!
Basically, if you keep your cars a long time (5+ years), buying is cheaper. If you get a new car every 2-4 years (like I do), then leasing can be very good. It all depends on your situation, it depends on the lease terms, etc. Some cars are very good to lease (like Audis right now), and some are not good to lease (just about any GM product), due to horrible residual valuse (then again, they're no bargain to buy, either).
Nick, the only things you can negotiate on a lease are the purchase price (which is the same as the cap cost) and the money factor. The residuals are set in stone by the leasing co's.
And I agree with Mark about putting $0 down on a lease. When I leased my A4, the only thing I had to put down at inception was the first payment (this is my first Audi, so I didn't qualify for the loyalty discount). So $440 was all I had to do at inception. You may have a security deposit or an inception fee, but don't ever do a cap cost reduction on a lease.
First, participants on this message board are from a number of venues. This alone should cause us all to use extreme caution. While an individual entrepreneur may have very valid reasons for structuring his business, and accounting, in a particular fashion, such methodology is not necessarily readily transferable. An IRS examiner is not going to be impressed if one were to cite the Audi message board as authority.
I manage a law firm. However, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an expert on taxes. That is the province of CPA's and tax attorneys. We regularly utilize both. I would no more opine on their area of expertise than I would do a valve job on my wife's A6.
This is not to suggest limiting the free flow and exchange of information. However, if we merely acknowledge the complexity of the tax code and the fact that some jurisdictions have both state and local taxes, the nuances of each individual or business are readily apparent. It is the responsibility of the one taking the advice, not the who disseminates it, to verify both accuracy and applicability.
Now, on to the non-tax lease question:
What is a good deal? First, I suggest reading the Edmunds leasing section. It is an excellent primer. After that, you will know that first, you must negotiate the best price on the vehicle. Second, which leasing company offers the lowest money factor (an outdated manner of expressing interest). Third, what is the residual? These are fundamentals of which most on this site are aware.
A point on "no money down". It is usually, but not always, the preferable course. However, to say "never" is a bit too absolute. If the money factor were high enough, i. e. not advantageous, there may be circumstances where it might be appropriate. However, as I said, above, check with your CPA or, if you are really desperate, an attorney.
One final thought: what the lease terms are, often is of secondary importance compared to the purchase price. Currently, 2001's are going for invoice, or close to it. 2002's for approximately $2,000, or less, off of msrp.
"Please check with your tax professional -- my suggestion a CPA who is a lawyer or a lawyer who has a CPA. You will get the best advice from them, not me."
As I mentioned, my wife is an attorney and her biggest concern (and you will perhaps see why) is CPA's who practice law or cross the line. My quote above -- even before marrying her -- is exactly what message 1906 was perhaps alluding.
Although I am an owner of a business, virtually everyone I know leases -- the main exception to the "lease" benefit seems to be either you drive many more than 15,000 miles per year or you plan to keep the car for at least 5 or 6 years (and talk show host Bruce Williams says you should "always" (?) pay cash for a car no matter what, unless you are merely renting one for the weekend).
And, technically morphie is also correct, if the money factor (interest, practically speaking) is high enough, well -- a cap cost reduction might be worth considering -- but then the argument of ROI on other possible uses of the money could ensue. Generally, for about the past 10+ years, the financing arms of companies, GMAC, Chrysler Credit, VWoA and now Audi Financial, offer such low money factors that I would only modify my earlier absolute statement to be "virtually never ever ever put any money down on a leased vehicle."
A deal is in the eye of the beholder -- currently the deals on 2001 Audi's (with the possible exception of S4's) are fantastic if you want last year's model (the 2002's ARE here, after all). These 2001's are hardly old technology -- and if you are considering either a 2.7T or a 4.2, the powertrains are very very close between the 2001's and 2002's, the warranty is excellent, etc.
I happen to believe there are differences between the '01's and '02's that are important, but the 2002 is NOT all new, all improved -- a 2002, while new and improved, will not instantly age a 2001 and give you buyer's remorse. Moreover, the '01 prices are, again, close to irrresistable -- I have an '01 and will not go for an '02, but "if I new then, what I know now", I sure would rather have the monthly payment being offered today (my lease is now 11 out of 30 payments old -- and "pre-recessioned" priced -- in both money factor and cap cost), but the saying you pay your money and take your choice rings true for me now -- I will have a 2003 Audi, A6, S6 or S4 based on what happens to the Audi line-up.
Anyone who wants an Audi (2.7T or 4.2) hear this: these are great cars, these are great lease deals. While this is probably not the last time such deal(s) that will ever happen, these deals are real and they are here NOW -- and going fast.
Have fun -- take advantage of things the way they are now. This recession won't last forever.
That's my story. . .
Mark
If you know of anyone in Cincy who can trade out the factory tires for the AVS dBs for less than $75 each, please let me know. My local dealer wants that much, and that seems a bit on the high side.
I'm getting eager!!
But, do you know what the car has on it? Maybe, just maybe you won't get those !@#$ Pirelli P6000 Z rated loud tires!
I saw the new A6 3.0's at the dealer yesterday they look nice especially the interior and the twin tail pipes -- while my wife was getting her TT serviced (Saturday service hours now, including a wash!) and while, btw, we were out test driving an allroad quattro -- which is SWEEEEEEET!.
Ask Bill sooner rather than later. That's my best advice.
I have a meeting in New Orleans on the 13th and 14th, so I won't go get mine before the trip and let it sit at the airport for three days!!
http://www.audiworld.com/news/01/15minutes/
Having been involved in Lemon law legislation, it is apparent that almost all State statutes are based upon the "repetitive" syndrome concept; i. e. multiple attempts to fix the same problem, combined with a specified period of time that the owner is without the vehicle. Many factors contribute to this dilemma: recalls, lack of parts availability, etc. Sometimes the car is just that: "a lemon".
While the A6 has not been trouble free, it does not appear to have the dismal record of some; just take a look at the first year of the Volvo S80. On the other hand, one should not expect the type of maintenance reliability of a Toyota or Honda. My experience, with two A6's, has been that if the vehicle is trouble free, on delivery, your odds improve significantly. Do not take delivery until it is perfect. We learned the hard way with #1. Further, the electrical system and wiring harness (at least 2001 or earlier) is so complex, one wonders how the car could be trouble free.
While Audi's are not perfect, neither are they disasters waiting to happen. I am reminded of the story of a motorcyclist that purchased a new Triumph Bonneville (1972 motorcycle, for the uninitiated); he then proceeded to prepare for the new arrival by placing mats on his garage floor, to protect against the inevitable oil leaks. In those days, that was not pessimism; it was a dose of reality.
Such is not the case with Audi. There will be some difficulties. However, many feel that the rewards of ownership outweigh the occasional aggravation. However, it is up to each purchaser to decide what the priorities are: the perfect appliance, or the flawed, yet stimulating, toy.
As for lemons: you will find most of them in the produce section of your local supermarket.
I have also owned several Chrysler products, VW products, one BMW (325iX) and even one American Motors product -- my father owned Hudson Hornet's, Chryslers, Plymouths and his last car was a Ford.
From ONLY my and my family's personal experience, I would say that Audi's from 1978 - 1983 were great cars to drive, but had many -- too many -- frequency of repair problems. After the great 60 Minutes piece nearly killed the brand in North America, Audi cars began a noticable steady improvement in all areas of the "ownership" experience. This continues today and indeed, I would argue is continuing to accelerate.
Now, this is not meant to say that they have equalled or surpassed the Premium Japanese Marques -- frankly I don't know, but I would say there is anecdotal evidence at least that NO EUROPEAN and especially no traditional AMERICAN brand has reached this level of perfection (as far as reliability goes). However, I believe the gap has and continues to narrow -- again this opinion is anecdotal, as I generally dismiss Consumer's Reports opinions on most things.
Audis, BMW's, Mercedes, VW's, Saabs, Jaguars, and Volvo's each have their fans and detractors. Most on this forum are Audi fans and although I could regail you with stories of my 1979 Audi Silver fox -- that used more oil than gasoline -- well, that is history and is not relevant to experiences over the past few years (for example 2 - 4 years). The Audi's we have had, especially starting with the 1995 S6 and the 1996 A4's have been "perfect" to drive, easy and thanks to the Audi advantage, cheap to have serviced (at least for the first 50K miles) and as or more reliable than virtually all my friends, relatives and acquaintences cars. Even my office manager's Camry had "some" problems -- and like the Audi problems they were basically fixed with little hassle, but not fixed free. And never were these incredibly high reliability cars as fun to drive as the Audi's.
The Audi car and dealer network continues to move forward in all positive ways (at least in Cincinnati, especially @ Northland Audi) -- I would not tell you your Audi will be perfect. I can tell you that if you love "the driving experience" though, you will almost certainly love driving any Audi product you can buy here in America.
But if sewing machine perfection/reliability is your #1 need/want -- stick with the Japanese Luxo brands, at least based on anecdotal evidence.
Mark
Thanks for all input.
Quattro compensates, up to a point, for winter conditions; it apportions what traction you have in a far more sophisticated manner than non all wheel drive. Traction, in the engineering sense, comes from the tires interaction with the road surface. In other words, if you are as fond of your A6 as you seem to be, buy four dedicated snow tires, preferably with rims.
I have always believed in snows; I have used Blizzaks on a rwd Volvo and Michelin's on the Audi's (Arctic Alpin). Both were vast improvements over the standard set. My choice to do this has been based upon the assumption that they would dramatically improve winter driving; however, last winter I experienced a practical example.
In early April 2001, I thought one of the Arctic Alpins on my wife's 1999 A6 Avant was going out of round. Rather than fool around with it, I elected to put her Michelin MXV4's on; my brilliant rationale was that spring was just around the corner. So much for prognostication.
As some may recall, we had an April storm in New England; roughly 6-8 inches of nasty stuff was dropped onto the streets, during rush hour. I had the Avant that day. What a difference. Even with quattro, the car would not immediately accelerate from a stop without some lateral movement. Coming up our driveway, which has a long incline, all four wheels were on ice; I had to back up in order to attain enough momentum to forge ahead. I am certain (more famous last words) that this would not have occurred with the snows on. In other words, please buy the tires; unless you live in Baltimore, Florida.
While one cannot go wrong purchasing dedicated snow tires of the same size as the original equipment, there are options. This is best discussed with TireRack. However, some tire engineers have opined that you want the smallest foot print that is consistent with proper size. This would appear to be the opposite of the "plus" concept. In any event, ask an expert.
As I stated above: the Blizzaks and the Michelin Arctic Alpins were both excellent; the latter was closer to a normal tire in dry conditions. While I have not yet owned a set, I understand that the Dunlop M2's are receiving very positive reviews.
I had an S6 in 1995 that would, I swear, climb a snow covered hill with the factory original tires on it -- and I believed that until I got stuck in my own driveway.
quattro is great, but if you live where there are real snows, I would go with four HP snow tires as discussed in recent posts.
I promise no more comments on this issue.
Will my 4.2 suffer the same fate with the Pirelli 6000s?
I, too, have read the articles on cvt with fwd. The comments are very positive. However, given my experience with Audi's, I would wait a few model years prior to indulging in new tecnology. This is not prejudice: we are picking up my wife's 2002 A6, tomorrow. I view it as pessimistic reality. Further, I assume that at some point, cvt will be available with quattro.
It is essential to note that the rationale for buying "quattro" goes beyond foul weather safety. It provides a completely different driving experience. Whether it is preferable to rwd, or not, is up to the purchaser/enthusiast. You need only read comparisons of the BMW 3 series and the S4 to appreciate these qualitative distinctions. In any event, why not drive the fwd cvt and the quattro variant, and base your conclusions and choice on first hand experience? I would be interested in your impressions.
Each time, part of the training is to drive a rear wheel drive Audi (although it does have studded snow tires, front and rear -- the entire training is on ice). Most of the time, however you are driving a quattro with four studded snow tires. Tests with and without ABS and with and without ESP with brake assist are performed -- with you behind the wheel, for the better part of 12 - 14 hours over a two day period.
You get to do and feel things that you, hopefully, will "never try at home."
The rear wheel drive A4's are completely tail happy, at almost any speed -- and are therefore easier to "steer by throttle" than the quattro's -- yet in virtually every exercise one of two differences (which I will call "real world" differences) becomes evident: Either you can "go faster" with AWD and four studded snow tires or you can go through exercises without losing control as easily (as with the rwd versions). One year they had BMW's there and the results were the same -- the BMW's were tail happy and harder to push through the course.
So here is the scene: you are on a sheet of ice with quattros and rwd Audis -- all with studded snow tires for the simple reason that you can "get the car into trouble" and learn how to control it at 30 - 50kph rather than on blacktop @ 80 - 120kph -- the effect is the same, the risks are lower and the wear and tear on the cars is less (you don't need new tires every four hours, or new brakes or new clutches etc.).
You come to learn that quattros CAN outperform rwd cars (especially if you are driving them) -- the instructors could do some pretty amazing things even with rwd -- but they could do even better with awd.
Translated to real world, public streets, etc -- the quattro will perform better for most of us and be "safer." Some people can make a BMW 3 series rwd outperform and Audi quattro -- just no one I know in the "real world."
Now, I know the arguments, I have been in them and even felt I lost them -- in a pure world, where "perfect" 50% 50% or perhaps even 45% - 55% weight distribution existed in your rwd car, it "should" perform better (so say the BMW crowd and some auto journalists). But the reality for most of us is: awd (quattro or 4Matic, I presume) broadens our performance and safety envelope significantly on dry, wet or frozen surfaces.
For years, BMW (and others) would poke fun and be generally disrespectful of the quattro system calling it a feature of false differentiation and generally to this day when I take a BMW for a test drive, the salesman rags on me for my Audi -- although the tune has changed a bit with the wet tongue, frozen pole advertising campaign, Mercedes AWD and now Jaguar AWD, Volvo etc etc. Seems like Ferdinand Piech was right in the early 80's after all -- but I digress.
Audi, always, until recently, sensitive about being compared (or ridiculed) to (by) BMW and BMW enthusiasts -- offered comparison drives between AWD Audi's and RWD BMW's -- as I mentioned, when I was in the Audi driving school we actually got to drive AWD Audis with 4 studded snow tires and RWD BMW's with 4 studded snow tires. Once.
In Germany, comparison advertising is not permitted by a company -- the only comparisons must be presented by the government. So, Audi complied and has a set of Rear Wheel Drive A4's (substitute BMW's, I suppose) to allow direct comparison with the AWD cars.
So, in a series of exercises, on ice, students are permitted to see the difference AWD makes over RWD on ice. The theory and justification of doing the exercises on ice is safety and wear and tear. The idea is take a quattro and put four studded snow tires on it, put special switches on the cars that disable ESP or ABS or both -- and have another set of RWD Audis identically equipped. Then set up exercises that increasingly build on one another: straight line braking with and without ABS, 360 turns with ever increasing speed (until breakaway), understeer, oversteer, power slide (steering by throttle), then combining all into a cone-delimited course.
What is remarkable, is that even the non-Audi drivers (my partner had a Mercedes, RWD w/ABS, ESP, brake assist, traction control and M.O.U.S.E. etc.) come to notice and believe that AWD is for safety, performance and fun. And, remember, you are paying 2,000 for this experience (either $2,000 if you are not in the quattro club or 2,000DM if you are in the quattro club). Also remember that only race instructors and event facilitators are there -- no overt attempt is made to sell. But of course, I assume many Audis have been sold as a result of taking the class.
So, like I said I really did mean RWD Audi -- we drove them and the AWD ones back to back. Quattro blows RWD away -- dry, wet or on ice.
And, if I worked for Audi, I think I would be a little concerned that my Dramatic Difference (in marketing jargon) was fading. A few years ago "they" made fun of quattro -- now quatto's are finishing 1-2-3 in some pretty impressive and respected races.
More to the $$$ point, though: Audi used to enjoy virtual uniqueness in the AWD market -- heck in 1988-89 there was a very nice BMW called a 325ix -- it went away. Years of RWD is better than AWD came from the Bimmer camp -- now we have wet tongue, frozen pole -- VW, Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, Subaru (and boy did Audi miss an advertising phrase -- most people I know identify Subaru as THE All Wheel Drive car company) and seemingly unlimited SUV's and All Activity Vehicles -- even mini-Vans and of course Porsche's come in AWD.
What is Audi to do -- it would seem that its competitive advantage WAS AWD -- when the full transformation by BWM, etc etc is made from RWD to AWD "availability" on all models is complete. . .what will be their niche? Will the ultimate driving machine become even more ultimate when it is "the ultimate drving machine -- now with available AWD" and if so -- what next?
Dr. Piech actually was right, he was just a little off in his timing, when he said in 1984 that "in 10 years, all high performance luxury cars will offer AWD."
As an Audi fan, I certainly hope that competition improves the breed.
End of tirade.
We have serviced this car exactly as specified at the dealership. The dealership wants us to pay half the cost ($5,000 plus $1,000 labor!!) for a new tranny. We say either the car is a lemon (it has needed numerous repairs too many to mention here) or the dealership (New York City) has not been properly servicing this car, although it has charged us an arm and a leg for service. We drive a lot, but it is mostly highway driving back and forth the New York city from Westchester.
Any help on strategy when we meet with the service rep from Audi this week would be most appreciated!
Should we dump the car or buy a new one...NOT an Audi, of course...any suggestions for cars with comparable all wheel drive...winter is on the way!And if we pay thousands for a new transmission...what's gonna go next? Is it worth it?
Many, many thanks from a brand new board member.
To your question: assuming that your service records are well documented, i. e. you have maintained the vehicle as specified and recommended, you are are not entitled to anything other than "goodwill". I suggest that you may wish to review your rhetoric prior to approaching either your dealer or Audi. Apparently, they are willing to share part of the cost, even though they are under no obligation to do so. Perhaps, they will do more.
It would seem that your potentially strongest argument would be a recurrent problem that had been documented when the vehicle was under warranty. The key here is "documentation". If you reported a malfunction, and it was not cured during the first 50,000 miles, you might have a debating point. The owner's reporting of a defect is what triggers warranty coverage.
My friend bought a Saab -- at 60,000 miles the troubles began -- of course they paid through the nose and did nothing to try to be a good customer (in Saab's eyes). Then, they went to Volvo -- so the Volvo was leased for 36 months and it was fine for the lease period -- so fine in fact that they sold it to a relative. About a year and half later -- the mighty Volvo broke -- big time. Of course both the original purchaser and the relative now think all Volvos and of course all Saabs are crap.
Another friend, similar story -- Jeep Grand Cherokee -- opted for the 3 year 36,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty -- at about 58,000 miles -- major major expensive repairs.
Yet another friend, a BMW -- which of course stands for "it takes Beauty Money and Wealth to keep one of them going." And my friend with the Dodge Intrepid did nore fare any better.
My friend who leases a new Cadillac every 24 months is happy -- so happy that when his 2000 DeVille was replaced with a 2001 free of charge with an apology from Cadillac, he decided to buy an Oldsmobile -- he has his "free" Cadillac and his Olds -- he drives the Olds to work and lets his wife drive the Cadillac which after all has On*Star just in case it breaks.
My next friend leased a Chrylser convertible -- and, against my soft protests, bought it at the end of the 36 month lease. He says it now costs the car payment plus $1,000 a month to keep it running.
Most who know me think that getting a new car with warranty every 24 - 30 months is expensive -- in fact, I got my 2001 Audi A6 4.2 only 17 months after my 2000 A6 4.2. My wife;s 2000 TT was traded in on a 2001 TT after 7 months (luckly with no $$$ penalty).
We "pay as we go" and we love our cars (Audi's) -- my friends who go for the long term, rarely buy the same brand of car twice alleging that it's because the cars are no good.
Here's a clue -- using the logic I have seen my associates, neighbors and friends use -- there are no good cars period (other than the ones that are legendary -- whatever that means). You pay now or you pay later. When you pay later you seem to pay when it is inconvenient and expensive.
My advice -- get an extended warranty, if you plan to keep the car more than the factory allowed warranty -- no matter what brand. If "the dealer or manufacturer" is willing to pay 50% of the cost of a repair after the warranty has expired -- and they are NOT required to do so -- I would say that this is a company who really wants my repeat business.
The warranty on an Audi can be "easily and relatively inexpensively" extended to 75,000 and for a bit more taken to 100,000 miles. Given all the stories I have heard about many different brands of cars -- I see nothing in the story above that would deter me from yet another Audi. Now, if the car was not performing to your satisfaction when it was not broken, well that's a good reason to not buy another one.
How many things that we can purchase OUTLIVE the warranty by 50% and we think they have been reliable. Cars and TV's routinely last at least 50% longer than their warranties -- yet we tend to think that a TV with a 2 year warranty that poops out at even 4 years is bad.
Our tolerance for cars is such that if a car with a warranty of 50,000 miles has a repair need at 75,000 miles that it was a bad car. It doesn't matter if it was a Saturn or and Audi -- I am confident that they both have examples of 150,000 mile owners with minor repairs and owners with 51,000 miles who have had expensive repairs.
It seems to me, that a 50% payment as a start is not an indication of a bad company. Now, if you are loyal to them, they may meet you another 20% or so -- and hopefully you will consider that they actually had to do nothing and if you buy another one they will continue to treat you as a valued customer and then some.
!@#$ happens to all cars -- my experience with Audis's is not perfect, but owning their cars has been, for the most part, delightful.
If you must keep ANY car beyond its warranty, I would urge you to consider an aftermarket warranty or a savings account "just in case." My belief is that with very few exceptions you will end up with money in the savings account (no matter what brand you ultimately choose to go with). Cars, for me at least, are not expected to be perfect. And, a deal is a deal. It seems you are getting treated above and beyond what is required.
You will get more positive responses if you are positive in your demeanor.
Good luck.
I'm about to buy either an Audi A6 2.7T or the Volvo S80 T6. I'd really appreciate your feedback on the pros/cons of the Audi. Also, any info re: lease deals would be great. I'm looking at a lease deal in the $550 range - is that a good deal or not?
According to what I read and what my friends tell me -- they are both very good cars.
They are, to repeat, differentiated by many things -- some overt some very subtle.
I doubt you will go wrong with either one of them.
Of course here in Audi message board land -- we mostly tout Audi's.
From my test drives, it seems the difference comes down to handling. The A6 seems to handle its hp better than the Volvo T6 - I don't know if its weight ratios or AWD. Also how's the A6 in the snow - noticeable difference vs other cars in its class that you've heard about that are FWD and RWD?
Her previous car was a 1999 A6 Avant (2.8); the new 3.0 is dramatically different. Off the line, it is noticeably quicker; a genuine pleasure to operate. My sense is that there are alterations in the transmission/torque converter, which also contribute to the experience. To put this in perspective: the 3.0 feels like a quality V6, with good torque; the 2.7T, to my way of thinking, has the aura of a high performance small V8, even though it is a "6"; While I have only driven the 4.2 once, it has a genuine V8 feel: smooth and effortless. Are not quality choices nice?
After 100 miles, all is well.
One "caution" I have read on this board and else where is that they don't stop any differently on "snow and ice" than a front or rear wheel drive car.
This is not 100% accurate -- but for all practical purposes it would appear to be "mostly true."
But those who have written this seem to say that that is somehow a negative -- the reasoning appears to be: quattros are superior in low traction situations to front and rear wheel drive cars, but they don't stop any better -- wouldn't you rather have a car that was inferior in slick conditions going and no better or no worse stopping in slick conditions? The logic that your ability to go will cause you to drive with reckless abandon is not obvious to me.
And, technically this "sameness" is mostly limited to straight line full panic stops on rain, snow, sleet or ice -- where the ABS with brake assist and ESP are your best friends no matter what end of the car provided the initial propulsion. In less than "full on" stops, quattro does provide additional control and even engine braking distributed to 4 rather than 2 wheels.
For me, Audi's quattro cars would seem to have significantly fewer detractors if their weight distribution was the so-called ideal of 50% front 50% rear -- Audi's do understeer in part due to the fact that their front ends weigh more than their back ends. Refined suspension layouts as are present on quattros tend to mitigate this understeering somewhat.
Moreover, many feel that understeering (mildly) is preferable in the real world to tail happy cars.
Volvos such as the ones you are looking at also understeer.
Like I said, pick the one you like or is at your price point. I do believe they appeal to completely different tastes (and that is not a criticism), however.
When I arrived, they gave me an old Audi 100 loaner (I really didn't care since I was greatful they took me) and I continued to work with only a five minute delay. It turns out the problem was a corroded contact which resulted in the sensor for the pressure in the fuel tank activating (I could have continued to drive with no problem).
They delivered the car back to me all cleaned, washed, and with a coat of wax. It's interesting that when I receive great service I find it unusual enough to make me wrie about it.
#1 The car (a 2001 A6 4.2 w/15k miles and 11 months old) has the best brakes it has ever had, and this includes the 2000 A6 4.2 that I had had for 17 months prior. Stopping, while never a worry or issue, is both easy and almost silent. There is the mixed review.
#2 At speeds above 65+ mph, there is STILL a purring or slight shudder. It is less pronounced than before, and as I am now over 1/3 of the way through the lease -- and still basically loving virtually everything else about the car, I will wait until the "condition" worsens or the lease runs its course, whichever comes first.
For the newcomers to this forum, I will replace this Audi with another Audi -- and TODAY, it would be another A6 -- I am tempted by the rumors of an S4 and/or S6 saloon, however.
I am impressed by the efforts expended by both Audi of America and my dealer service department. There has been absolutely no effort on their part to "convince" me that "they all do it -- and I should live with it" or any excuses at all. I have received NOTHING but support, empathy and assistance.
I commend the dealer highly for fighting the good fight.
Those of you on this board and AudiWorld that have replaced their rotors some under the Audi Advantage, some on their own should have sent a message to Audi loud and clear -- my guess is these message boards work, as the write up of both the NEW A4's brakes (by journalists) and the declaration, in marketing literature, that the A6's for 2002 have improved brakes lend credence to that notion.
Anyway, I am not 100% happy with my brakes, but I am 110% impressed with the company and the dealership.
Thanks,
GJ
and Leather interior. Also interested in the heated seats option. I see the MSRP and Invoice posted in Edmunds...but what are these cars going for on the street? Anyone buy one lately? I know they just came out, but any assistance here would be most appreciated.
I am guessing they are getting $1500-$2000 over invoice.
Drinking coffee in the car well, forget it -- but I don't allow that any way.
I am not a particularly large person (6' 185 lbs) and the belts I wear are generally "top grain cowhide" -- the kind that does not deteriorate -- my belts are not cheapies @ about $150 each -- so I found the belt-shadow staining to be worse with an inexpensive brown belt that I bought at the Gap.
So, I loved the look of it -- it was very high maintenance -- indeed I now have the Melange interior and @ 15,000 miles have had the front seats professionally cleaned (oh yea, I don't smoke either). My wife's avaitor gray leather seats on her TT, however are fine. If available, I will get Pearl white exterior and "dove gray" (aviator gray) leather seats on my next one.
I guess I like the interior to keep that showroom new look --- and frankly I just couldn't clean the Vanilla enough to satisfy myself!
My $.02 worth. But I do think it is "purty!"
2. Pricing will depend on the local market and your negotiating skills. Many markets are soft right now. $1500 to $2000 over invoice sounds very realistic.
3. Just returned from Vermont after accumulating about 1400 up and back, and touring while there. My brakes are unpredictable. Sometimes a little vibration and purring, sometimes neither, and there seems to be no correlation to any certain variable I can isolate. Not temperature, use, moisture, or anything else. Mark, go figure!